FTC: Mortgage modification scammers preyed on distressed homeowners

The "Federal Debt Commission" sounds like something pretty official. So does the "Federal Assistance Progam" and the "Federal Mortgage Marketplace." But in fact, all three were scams that tricked financially-strapped consumers into paying for mortgage-relief services that were never provided, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

“Years after the economic meltdown, the FTC is still exposing and shutting down bogus mortgage relief schemes,” said Jess...

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is filing three lawsuits against companies and individuals that allegedly collected more than $25 million in illegal advance fees for services that falsely promised to prevent foreclosures or renegotiate troubled mortgages.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken action against six mortgage relief operations. In each case, the FTC has sought an order stopping the illegal practices and freezing the defendants’ assets pending the outcome of the litigation.

Fifteen states working with the federal agencies have filed 32 legal actions aimed at stopping the deceptive practices and recovering fees paid by consumers.

“We are taking on schemes that prey on consumers who are struggling to pay their mortgages or facing foreclosure,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “These companies pocketed illegal fees — taking millions of hard-earned dollars from distressed consumers, and then left those consumers worse off than they began. These practices are not only illegal, they are reprehensible.”

“Mortgage relief schemes like these target people who are already having financial problems and, all too often, inflict even further harm on them,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We’re determined to stop operations that illegally charge up-front mortgage relief fees or make empty mortgage relief promises.”

Law firms named

The first CFPB lawsuit names Clausen & Cobb Management Company and its owners, as well as Stephen Siringoringo and his Siringoringo Law Firm. The second lawsuit is against The Mortgage Law Group, LLP, the Consumer First Legal Group, LLC, and attorneys Thomas Macey, Jeffrey Aleman, Jason Searns, and Harold Stafford. The third lawsuit is against the Hoffman Law Group, its operators, Michael Harper, Benn Wilcox, and attorney Marc Hoffman, and its affiliated companies, Nationwide Management Solutions, Legal Intake Solutions, File Intake Solutions, and BM Marketing Group.

The CFPB alleges that the scammers used deceptive marketing to persuade thousands of consumers to pay millions in illegal, upfront fees for promised mortgage modifications. Each of the scammers was a law firm or was associated with one.

The defendants disguised their false promises of foreclosure relief for struggling homeowners with claims that they were performing legal work. These tactics are used by foreclosure relief scams to attract victims, add credibility to their schemes, or exploit certain legal exemptions for the practice of law.

Illegal practices

The illegal practices alleged in the complaints include:

Collecting fees before obtaining a loan modification: Companies cannot legally accept payment for helping to obtain a mortgage modification for a consumer before the consumer has a modification agreement in place with their lender.

Inflating success rates and likelihood of obtaining a modification: The firms’ marketing materials misrepresented the likelihood that they would help consumers save substantial sums in mortgage payments.

Duping consumers into thinking they would receive legal representation: All of these companies allegedly used their status as attorneys to dupe consumers into thinking they would receive legal representation when many consumers never spoke with an attorney or had their case reviewed by one.

Making false promises about loan modifications to consumers: During meetings, some consumers were misled into believing that they were eligible for a loan modification. Other consumers were promised that they would receive relief within a few months. In the end, many consumers learned that the defendants had not contacted their lenders or obtained any meaningful relief for them.

Ultimately, homeowners across the country lost thousands of dollars and suffered significant economic injury, including losing their homes.

FTC actions

Including the six cases announced today, the FTC has brought 48 actions against companies peddling fraudulent mortgage relief schemes since 2008. The cases announced today include:

Danielson Law Group. The FTC has alleged that these Utah-based defendants touted a success rate that exceeded 90% and enticed consumers to pay hefty advance fees ranging from $500 to $3,900 – falsely promising that attorneys would negotiate loan modifications with substantially reduced mortgage payments using their special relationships with lenders or mortgage analysis reports produced by a proprietary software program. The defendants also urged homeowners to stop paying their lenders, and falsely promised full refunds if they did not obtain a loan modification, according to the FTC.

FMC Counseling Services, Inc. The FTC has alleged that from at least February 2011, this Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based operation made false claims that it was affiliated with the federal government’s Making Home Affordable assistance program, and that it would renegotiate consumers’ mortgages, reducing them by several hundred dollars. Deceptively using the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s logo and doing business as the “Federal Debt Commission,” the “Federal Mortgage Marketplace,” and the “Federal Assistance Program,” the defendants promised consumers their mortgage modifications would be completed quickly or that they could provide free mortgage refinancing. The defendants also told consumers to cease communications with their lenders, and to turn over their mortgage payments while refinancing was pending. Collecting more than $600,000 in payments from hundreds of consumers, the defendants did nothing for consumers and failed to apply any funds received from consumers to their existing mortgages. As a result, many consumers lost their homes as well as their mortgage payments.

Lanier Law. The FTC has alleged that from at least 2011, this Jacksonville, Fla.-based operation typically told consumers that they would get a loan modification or that their chances of getting one was 85% to 100%. The defendants typically collected an upfront fee of $1,000 to $4,000, or an ongoing monthly fee of $500 or more. In some cases, according to the FTC, they also told consumers not to pay their mortgages while their supposed loan modifications were pending, and that they would conduct an audit of consumers’ mortgage documents to find errors or fraud committed by the lender.

Mortgage Relief Advocates. The FTC has alleged that from at least August 2010, this California-based operation sold fraudulent mortgage assistance services on its websites and through telemarketing. Charging an up-front fee of $1,000 to $3,200, the defendants are alleged to have rarely provided the promised mortgage relief.

Home Relief Foundation. The defendants allegedly told consumers to stop paying their mortgages – without disclosing that if they did so, consumers could face bankruptcy, risk losing their homes, or damage their credit ratings. Charging advance fees ranging from $500 to $4,000, the defendants collected more than $500,000 during the course of their operation, according to the complaint.

CD Capital Investments. The FTC has alleged that from mid-2011, this Southern California-based operation often promised consumers would receive mortgage relief services within two to four months, and often claimed affiliation with the Obama Administration’s “Making Home Affordable Program.”

Why don;t you go affer OCWEN Mortaga company they tried to rip me off. 6 months and they well not sent me a pay off paper work. WHAT A R OFF COMPANY

Linda A. Longo

They should go after OCWEN !!!!

Federal and state agencies today announced a sweeping round-up of alleged scam artists blamed for ripping off distressed homeowners across the country.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is filing three lawsuits against companies and individuals that allegedly collected more than $25 million in illegal advance fees for services that falsely promised to prevent foreclosures or renegotiate troubled mortgages.

And some homeowners are still trying to modify mortgages, meeting the same problems as before

The U.S. housing market all but collapsed in 2009 because of an avalanche of foreclosures. People with subprime mortgages found they couldn't make the payments when rates reset. Even people with prime mortgages found they were unable to keep up when they lost their jobs.

In response, the Treasury Department created the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) to help homeowners avoid preventable foreclosures by encouraging servicers to modify mortgages to reduce month...

Bank of America has begun contacting some of its mortgage customers who may be eligible for a mortgage balance reduction. The bank is committed to forgiving some principal for underwater borrowers, as part of a settlement with 49 states and the U.S. government.

In the first wave of letters, Bank of America said it is targeting more than 200,000 mortgage-holders who could potentially save as much as 30 percent of their monthly payments under the program.

"Building on home retention and payment assistance programs already in place, we are meeting our obligation to deliver this additional relief to our customers following the completion of the recent global mortgage settlement," said Ron Sturzenegger, Legacy Asset Servicing executive. "To the extent principal reduction and other modification tools help us turn mortgages headed for possible foreclosure into long-term performing loans, it will be positive for homeowners, mortgage investors and communities."

Complaints

Unfortunately Bank of America, as most other mortgage lenders, has drawn complaints from struggling homeowners who have been trying to modify their mortgages.

"We have a BOA loan and we cannot get them to do anything to help," Cat, of Mulberry, Tenn., wrote in a ConsumerAffairs post. We get the runaround, we send documents and never get replies other than being told to send documents again. We were told we were getting a modification over a year ago and now we are not getting it."

"For the past 18 months I have been trying to get a loan modification from Bank of America," wrote Carolyn, of San Diego, Calif. "My house is now in foreclosure."

Bank of America's new principal forgiveness program will target many customers already in the modification process, so it remains to be seen if this resolves the issues that have plagued the process so far. Bank of America has expressed confidence the program will help, noting that it actually began it back in March

Early start

"So far under this early initiative, about 5,000 trial modification offers have been mailed, providing a potential total of more than $700 million in forgiven principal," the company said in a statement. "Homeowners are required to make at least three timely payments before the modification can become permanent."

Bank of America says the wave of mailings beginning this week will reach a broader base of customers who may be eligible for this principal reduction program. The letters provide each homeowner with a description of the program and an invitation to provide financial information to begin the review process.

To be eligible for this program, a homeowner must meet certain criteria, including:

Has a loan that is owned and serviced by Bank of America, or serviced for another investor that has given the bank delegated authority to do such modifications.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA/VA are not participating in the principal reduction program, but Bank of America says other modification programs which may provide comparable reductions in monthly payments are available on those loans.

13 comments

Anna Reeder

Now, if Obama had given the citizens that bailout money instead, I'll bet these folks could have paid their mortgages, put money back into the economy and we wouldn't be in the huge mess we're in.

Victoria Petruzelli Bolduc

And by the way... the modifications they offer are more often than not adding to the principal and making the bank even more monies!

Roy Talley

JUST LIKE BOA - ACT LIKE THEY CARE ABOUT THE CUSTOMER THEN SCREW THEM LIKE THE CELL PHONE COMPANIES, (T- MOBILE WOULD BE THE WORST) CREDIT UNIONS ARE THE ANSWER.

Victoria Petruzelli Bolduc

Discrimination once again towards Fannie Mae and Mac and FHA/VA clients... how does this Bank get away with this... do we not deserve help as well... Naughty Naughty BOA.

Dena Henderson

Fed Ex'd -you will receive a Full Forgiveness or principal, this means you know longer owe this amount

Rick M Pino

We just received our letter to forgive from BofA. They are calling it "Home Equity account". Funny, our original 2nd loan was with CountryWide, who lost it to BofA, yet, they're calling it a home equity loan. Doesn't matter, we're about to lose this 2nd, that has not been paid on for 2.5yrs. We did settle with the 1st and modified. We tried for the last 15mo. to do the same with BofA. Our Atty. said BofA is in a bad place....they're the 2nd loan, what can they do. Patience is Vertue!

Apostle Pat Gaston

I agree w/Frank & Victoria here. Unfortunately w/ BofA you always have to read between the lines to decipher what they are really saying. Those who have dealt w/them know they "announce" one thing & do something else. They are not to be trusted. #justmyexperience

Frank Cole

Easier said than done...
Bank of America Tells Family It Won't Forclose, Tries To Foreclose Anyway.
http://consumerist.com/2012/05/bank-of-america-tells-family-it-wont-foreclose-tries-to-foreclose-anyway.html

Lydia Pol

I don't agree! I hated when the banks were bailed out, along with AIG and the auto companies. I'd hate it just as much had it been the homeowners getting bailed out because too many got in over their heads. Bigger is not always better, especially when one cannot afford it.
Either way, when the gov't hands money over, it is we who foot the bill. The few remaining taxpayers, and our burden is becoming heavier. Now we have to foot the bill for college grads. We did the stunt with new cars and a whole bunch of things, and nothing will pull us out of this mess until we all get off our duffs, vote the bums out, get rid of the FedRes, and take control of our own lives.

Victoria Petruzelli Bolduc

BTW what we all seem to be forgetting is that we the homeowners are bailing out the banks not the US Government... is it not the homeowners who are paying more heavily to the government when it comes to TAXES which is paying for these bailouts! I say lower the taxes and let us pay for our own bills and not the good ole government who tends to give our tax monies away freely to the the monopoly corporations in this country.

Ruthie Portis

Wow from reading these comments its sad. The housing market went bust in 2008, who was in office BUSH. Blame Congress for not doing more also they can give themselves raises but not for us, so do not put blame in one place...spread it around.

Marianne Sippel

Exactly the same. I've played this game with B of A before. We all lose. Enforce this thing, Obama!
Signed, Homeowner/Voter.

Sonorra McMath

more of the same.

Bank of America has begun contacting some of its mortgage customers who may be eligible for a mortgage balance reduction. The bank is committed to forgiving some principal for underwater borrowers, as part of a settlement with 49 states and the U.S. government.

In the first wave of letters, Bank of America said it is targeting more than 200,000 mortgage-holders who could potentially save as much as 30 percent of their monthly payments under the program.

Agency says 'forensic audits' were unlikely to help homeowners

June 1, 2010
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has named several new defendants and added new charges concerning so-called "forensic audits" to its lawsuit against an operation that allegedly bilked homeowners who were trying to lower their mortgage payments.

The action is part of a continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers who are behind in their mortgage payments or at risk of foreclosure.

The FTC has added as defendants Bradford R. Geisen; Maurice Jackson; Patrick Butler; Credit Services Alliance Inc.; and CreditLawGroup, a law firm run by two of the original defendants, John W. Smith and Glenn E. Gromann. The original defendants also included The Debt Advocacy Center LLC; Smith, Gromann & Davidson P.A.; and Kevin McCormick.

Questionable ads

According to the FTC's amended complaint, the new defendants, along with Smith and Gromann, offered "forensic audits" -- checking a homeowner's loan documents for law violations that would give them leverage in negotiating with lenders to obtain a loan modification or a "short sale" (sale of a house for an amount less than the mortgage balance).

Their ads stated, "We have found that between 80-90 percent of all loans that we have audited have some form of rights violations." They collected $995 in advance for each audit even though an audit was unlikely to assist in negotiations with lenders, the complaint alleges.

Jack of San Jose, CA, had an unpleasant experience with a forensic audit. "The Mortgage Relief Law Center (MRLC) company cashed my check of $2,795.00 even thought they already know that our application is not qualified at the beginning," he wrote in a complaint to ConsumerAffairs.com. "They knew that we would not able to qualify, but never informed us and let us wait for six months without any status result from the mortgage company.

Finally, after almost seven months hoping, we received a letter from our mortgage company (CitiMortgage), which states that we are not qualified for a loan modification." MRLC, he says, refused his request for a refund.

Variety of charges

The FTC charged the new defendants, and Smith and Gromann, with falsely claiming that as a result of forensic loan audits consumers would obtain completed short sales or loan modifications that would make their mortgage payments substantially more affordable. They are also charged with telemarketing without paying the required annual fee to access telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.

The FTC's original complaint, filed in November 2009, contended that The Debt Advocacy Center, operated by several individuals, charged customers $1,500 based on the alleged false promise that it would get homeowners' loans modified to make their mortgage payments more affordable.

The FTC says that defendants falsely claimed they had helped more than 90 percent of their clients, and that they would refund consumers' money or pay a penalty if they failed. They are also charged with debiting consumers' bank accounts or charging their credit cards without their consent. The court halted the operations and froze the defendants' assets, pending resolution of the case.

by James Limbach ConsumerAffairs.com

June 1, 2010
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has named several new defendants and added new charges concerning so-called "forensic audits" to its lawsuit against an operation that allegedly bilked homeowners who were trying to lower their mortgage payments.

The action is part of a continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers who are behind in their mortgage payments or at risk of foreclosure.

AG Focuses On Foreclosure Rescue Scams In Ohio

Two businesses sued for deceiving consumers who hoped to save their homes

06/22/2010 | ConsumerAffairs

June 22, 2010
As part of a national mortgage fraud sweep dubbed "Operation Stolen Dreams," Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray has filed lawsuits against two Ohio foreclosure rescue businesses for failing to provide services for which consumers paid.

JLS & Associates Financial Services LLC (JLS), based in Cleveland, and Freedom Equity Savings LLC (FES), located in the Columbus area, are accused of defrauding homeowners across the state out of thousands of dollars.

"Both of these businesses targeted Ohioans throughout the state who were in dire need of foreclosure prevention help," said Cordray. "They promised services that were not delivered and in many cases consumers ended up worse off than they were before they dealt with these companies."

Money for nothing

JLS is accused of charging consumers more than $1,000 each in upfront fees with the promise to save their homes from foreclosure. In the end, the promised services were not provided and some consumers' homes ended up in foreclosure.

The lawsuit charges JLS with several violations of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act, including failure to deliver and unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts or practices. The case, filed in Lucas County Common Pleas Court, seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief and victim restitution.

FES is registered to do business in Ohio as well as nine other states: Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Oregon, Tennessee and Texas. The company utilizes a sophisticated-looking website and phone solicitations to attract consumers and charges up to $3,250 in fees.

The lawsuit also alleges that upon contact, FES claims that it can arrange loan modifications for consumers that will result in a reduction of monthly payments. FES is charged with violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act including: failure to deliver; making misleading statements of opinion; unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts or practices and violations of Ohio's Debt Adjuster Act and Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Cordray is seeking civil penalties, injunctive relief and victim restitution.

Other actions

In addition to these two new cases, as part of "Operation Stolen Dreams" Cordray secured default judgments in the following three foreclosure rescue scam cases:

 State of Ohio v. United Law Group Inc., Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

 State of Ohio v. Foreclosure Home Assistance LLC d/b/a Global Home Rescuers, Artice Gordon and Wanda Sanchez-Gordon, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

All three default judgments required the businesses to stop operating in Ohio and to pay civil penalties and consumer restitution.

Since January 2009, Cordray has filed lawsuits against 11 foreclosure rescue businesses operating in Ohio including those announced today and has issued more than 30 cease and desist notices. He has secured default judgments against five of those companies for $900,000 in civil penalties and restitution.

Operation Stolen Dreams is a mortgage fraud sweep initiated by U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder as part of the United States Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.

June 22, 2010
As part of a national mortgage fraud sweep dubbed "Operation Stolen Dreams," Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray has filed lawsuits against two Ohio foreclosure rescue businesses for failing to provide services for which consumers paid.

JLS & Associates Financial Services LLC (JLS), based in Cleveland, and Freedom Equity Savings LLC (FES), located in the Columbus area, are accused of defrauding homeowners across the state out of thousands of dollar...

Marketers charged advanced fees, delivered nothing, FTC says

The Federal Trade Commission has reached settlements with eight marketers it says charged homeowners up-front fees and falsely claimed they could get their mortgage loans modified or prevent foreclosure on their homes.

The settlements in three separate actions are part of the FTC's ongoing efforts against scams that target financially distressed consumers. The eight marketers have been banned from marketing these services in the future and one, Federal Loan Modification Law Center, has been fined $11.5 million.

According to the FTC complaint, the Federal Loan Modification Center sold a so-called "Federal Loan Modification program." They charged up to $3,000, much of which they required up-front, but Federal Loan Modification often failed to live up to the promised results, according to the FTC's complaint, and homeowners complaining to ConsumerAffairs.com.

"This company ripped me off me for $3000.00 for a loan modification, Jean of Buford, Ga., told ConsumerAffairs.com in April. "I lost my house and now I'm homeless."

The settlement order against owner Steven Oscherowitz permanently bans him from selling mortgage relief services and from telemarketing any good or service. Under the order, Oscherowitz also is prohibited from misrepresenting any good or service, selling or otherwise benefiting from customers' personal information, and failing to dispose of customer information properly.

$11.5 million judgment

The order imposes an $11.5 million judgment against Oscherowitz, which represents the amount consumers paid to the defendants while he was involved in the alleged scheme. Any money collected to satisfy the judgment will be paid to injured consumers if practicable, the FTC said.

The settlement also includes Hope Now Modifications, which the FTC said falsely claimed that they could obtain mortgage loan modifications in all or virtually all cases and would refund consumers' money if they failed. The company allegedly told consumers that they were affiliated with, or part of, the HOPE NOW Alliance, a free federal homeowner assistance program.

Raymond, of College Park, Ga., said he talked to Hope Now in October 2008 about helping him modify his loan. He was told to send payments of $500 and $750 and said he was promised a refund if modification efforts failed.

"I haven't heard from them since December 2008," Raymond told ConsumerAffairs.com. "I am about to go through a divorce and file for bankruptcy. My life is upside down since that ordeal."

Raymond just might get his money back. The order also imposes a judgment of almost $5.3 million, which will be suspended when the defendants surrender all of the funds in their bank accounts, which were frozen by the court.

Loss Mitigation Services, Inc. (LMS) and Synergy Financial Management Corporation, doing business as Direct Lender or DirectLender.com (Direct Lender), also allegedly misrepresented that the companies were a department of, or affiliated with, the consumer's lender or mortgage servicer.

Promised refunds

In addition, the agency says the owners falsely claimed that consumers would receive refunds if LMS or Direct Lender failed to secure a loan modification. In many cases, the defendants failed to obtain loan modifications for consumers, and some consumers lost their homes while waiting for the promised results.

I got a letter (from Loss Mitigation Services) saying that I could qualify for a loan modification," Devin, of Thousand Oaks, Calif., told ConsumerAffairs.com. "When I called I was told they have a money back guarantee, if they didn't get my loan modified within 6 months. I paid $3600 and it's been six months, I can't get anyone on the phone and nothing has been done to modify my loan. I feel they are scammers."

Under the settlement orders, Loss Mitigation Service's owners are banned from selling mortgage relief services. The orders also impose a $6.2 million judgment that is suspended due to their inability to pay.

The settlements in three separate actions are part of the FTC's ongoing efforts against scams that target financially distressed consumers. The eight marketers have been banned from marketing these services in the future and one, Federal Loan Modification Law Center, has been fined $11.5 million.

According to the FTC complaint, the Federal Loan Modification Center sold a so-called "Federal Loan Modification program." They charged up to $3,000, much of which they required...

State continues to be hard-hit by foreclosures

The crackdown on consultants promising desperate homeowners they
can “rescue” them from impending foreclosure continues.
The State of Florida has sued three South Florida companies
allegedly charging upfront fees for their services.

It's against the law in Florida to charge upfront fees for
services to modify mortgages or otherwise mitigate a
foreclosure.

Assets frozen

As a result of the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General’s
Office, the Palm Beach County Circuit Court ordered the
defendants’ assets be frozen. In addition, they are forbidden
from operating until further order of the court.

According to an investigation conducted by the Attorney
General’s Economic Crimes Division, these companies, located
in Delray Beach, were allegedly charging upfront fees ranging from
$495 to $2,000 for foreclosure-related loan modification services
that were never rendered.

The complaint charges the defendants falsely represented to
homeowners that they would work with lenders to reduce the
homeowners’ debt and prevent foreclosure, when in reality the
lender banks were never contacted on the homeowners’ behalf.
The companies were allegedly soliciting hundreds of homeowners
nationwide via telemarketing, direct mail, e-mail and Internet,
print and TV advertising.

Restitution

Based on the court order, the businesses and individuals are
prohibited from engaging in loan modification services or accepting
any upfront fees while the litigation is pending. The lawsuit seeks
to force the companies to return homeowners' money and asks for
civil penalties of $15,000 for each violation of the Foreclosure
Fraud Prevention Act, and reimbursement for fees and costs related
to the investigation.

Florida is among the states waging an ongoing battle with
foreclosure rescue outfits. The state has been fertile territory
for these schemes because it has suffered so many foreclosures.

Minnesota, Texas, New York, California, Nevada and Ohio are
among the states that have also sued foreclosure rescue firms over
the last couple of years.

The crackdown on consultants promising desperate homeowners they
can “rescue” them from impending foreclosure continues.
The State of Florida has sued three South Florida companies
allegedly charging upfront fees for their services.

It's against the law in Florida to charge upfront fees for
services to modify mortgages or otherwise mitigate a
foreclosure.

• A full 45 percent of loan modifications are packaged with increased payments.

The NACBA says that given the failure of loan modifications to put a dent in the number of foreclosures, nothing short of legal intervention will reverse a trend that recently prompted Credit Suisse to forecast 8.1 million U.S. mortgage foreclosures in the next four years. That forecast was up sharply from the 2 to 6 million foreclosures previously forecast by a variety of industry experts.

"Court-supervised loan modification is urgently needed to deal with this problem. Despite a proliferation of voluntary programs, we are not seeing evidence of a meaningful number of sustainable loan modifications," said Henry Sommer, NACBA president.

In its first report in February, the State Foreclosure Prevention Working Group, comprised of attorneys general and state banking departments, reported that the vast majority, 70 percent of seriously delinquent borrowers were not on track for any loss mitigation option. By September that had risen to 80 percent.

"The number of homeowners working toward a loan modification has declined by 28 percent between January and May, falling to a level not seen since late in 2007," the group reported.

What it is

A home loan modification, granted only upon the existing lender's approval, permanently reworks some of the terms of an existing mortgage in order to lower monthly payments and make the loan more affordable to the homeowner.

The strategy is typically designed for homeowners struggling to pay their mortgage, not for those who can pay their mortgage or are eligible for a refinanced loan.

The mortgage modification method of relief is at the top of the list of weapons used in the fight to stop foreclosures because struggling homeowners typically can't qualify for a refinanced mortgage — a brand new loan written to pay off the old home loan. Other options — a short sale (the lender forgives a portion of the debt owed if the owner can find a buyer), bankruptcy or auction sale — all cost consumers their home.

Modifications are generally lender fee-free and involve the lender or loan holder lowering the interest rate and or changing an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) to a fixed rate mortgage (FRM) with a 30-year term. Some form of mandated homeownership counseling generally comes with the deal.

Complex transaction

"A mortgage is one of the most complex transactions there is. A loan modification is also a gray area for a lot of people. So of course people need someone to walk them through the process to tell them this is what you need and this is what you don't need," said Ginna Green, spokeswoman for the California office of the Center for Responsible Lending in Oakland.

In addition to lowering and locking in the interest rate, less common loan modifications include adding missed payments to the loan balance and extending the term of the loan. The least common, but most sought-after feature, is a reduction in the principal, whereby the lender actually lowers the mortgage balance, to further enhance affordability.

Reduced principal, along with deep interest cuts is, however, at the core of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) more liberal loan modification program "Loan Modification Program Guide -- 'Mod in a Box' " modeled after the agency's mortgage adjusting efforts used on the home loans of IndyMac Bank of Pasadena. FDIC took control of the failed bank earlier this year.

"If they (lenders) reduce the first or wipe out the second, let me know. I haven't heard of lenders doing this. They are staying away from this," said Glenda Queensbury, a mortgage adviser and real estate agent at Referral Realty in San Jose, CA.

No relief in sight

Little relief is expected from the recently announced Federal Housing Finance Agency's "Streamlined Modification Program" designed for loans held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The program is the first major effort to help set standards for loan modification programs. It creates a three-month mortgage modification trial period that includes the modification terms that will take effect if the borrower makes the new payments as prescribed during the trial period.

However, the SMP continues some of the ills NACBA says has prevented loan modification from becoming more widespread and successful. SMP loans are voluntary, they allow tacking on accrued interest, they can come with ARM rate-like terms with both rising and balloon payments, they only apply to the first mortgage, not second loans, and borrowers must have loan-to-value ratio of 90 percent or more.

Consumers seeking loan modifications have also been thwarted by the fear of fraud from a largely unregulated cottage industry of private loan modification services that can charge thousands of dollars in upfront fees.

"A racket"

"It's become a racket," says Greg Pennington, a San Francisco-based mortgage banking consultant and counselor with Parker-Pennington Enterprises.

The NACBA blamed a host of factors for the failure of mortgage modifications to catch on.

• Borrowers and servicers are often unable to locate multiple mortgage holders all of whom have to agree to the modification.

"The loans have been sliced and diced so many times that all of the owners cannot be found and brought into the process," the NACBA reports.

• Loan servicers fear investor lawsuits. Servicers have a fiduciary responsibility to investors who purchased mortgage-backed securities comprised, in part, of loans up for modification. Servicers are hesitant to modify numerous loans if it will cause the security to lose income and the investors to sue.

• Voluntary modifications typically don't include second mortgages. Second mortgages were heavily in vogue during the housing boom as equity gains allowed homeowners to buy larger homes than they could truly afford and use their home like an ATM.

NACBA also says in 2006, a third to a half of all 2006 subprime borrowers took out piggyback second mortgages on their homes at the same time they took out their first mortgages.

Unfortunately, first mortgage holders don't have any incentive to write modifications to give borrowers money to make payments on second mortgages. Just as risk-averse as first mortgage holders, second mortgage holders, rather than waive their rights in a loan modification that could cost them a 100 percent loss, they'd rather take their chances on collecting a few more payments before the borrower goes into foreclosure.

• NACBA also says overwhelmed servicers are not set up for the case-by-case negotiation process necessary for modifications, but more practiced in the automated foreclosure process -- which comes with financial incentives.

"Many also have monetary incentives to foreclose rather than modify," NACBA reports.

--- Broderick Perkins parlayed 30 years of old-school journalism into a digital real estate news service, the DeadlineNews Group, offering "News that really hits home!"™. The Silicon Valley bootstrap includes the Web site DeadlineNews.Com and the back shop Deadline Newsroom. Contact him at news@deadlinenews.com.

Loan modifications aren't reaching struggling homeowners in need of creative financing and foreclosure prevention. And in many cases, the mortgage bailouts backfire on homeowners they do reach.

In a scathing indictment of loan modifications efforts, the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) says:

• When loan modifications are written, fewer than one in 10 of them result in a reduced principal loan balance.

Litton Loan Complaints Continue Following Settlement

Distressed homeowners target Goldman Sachs subsidiary

08/19/2009 | ConsumerAffairs

By Jon Hood

Jonathan Hood is a New York City attorney who practices ...
Read Full Bio→

Phone: 866-773-0221

Four months after Litton Loan Services settled a class action accusing the company of imposing bogus late fees, complaints about Litton continue to roll into ConsumerAffairs.com. Some consumers allege that Litton failed to timely post payments to their accounts, the main issue in the class action. Still others get the run-around from the mortgage servicing company on the possibility of receiving a loan adjustment, leading to confusion and, in many cases, the threat of foreclosure.

In April, Litton settled a class-action lawsuit alleging that the company failed to credit borrowers' mortgage payments in a timely fashion, then turned around and charged late fees for the purportedly tardy payments. In some cases, consumers' accounts were put into default. The suit covered all homeowners whose mortgage transaction was transferred or sold to Litton between October 2002 and February 2009, and who were charged erroneous late fees within 60 days of the transfer.

Litton tracks consumer payment records using a complex automated servicing platform. Known as Risk Assessment Default Analytic and Reporting (or RADAR), the system transfers information from primary lenders to Litton for processing. This procedure is known as the boarding process. According to the suit, RADAR glitches were the main cause of payments being wrongly flagged as late.

In court papers, former Litton employee Debra Murray said that [I]t was common that information regarding loan histories was improperly transferred from the prior lender during the loan boarding process. Murray further said that 95% of consumer complaints were caused by Litton's mistakes in servicing the borrowers' loans and were resolved in favor of the borrower. The bulk of these complaints alleged that Litton failed to credit consumers for payments they had already made.

Overwhelmed

Murray also said that Litton was becoming overwhelmed by the number of accounts it handled, and became increasingly careless and negligent as a result.

For example, Murray said that when a payment couldn't be matched to an account, it was placed in a catch-all payment clearing account, where it sat for months or even years. Meanwhile, the account of the consumer who sent in the payment went into default, collecting late fees and sometimes ending up in foreclosure. Murray also said that, when she found a missing payment, she was instructed to apply it as of the day it was discovered, rather than the date it was received. This, too, caused customers who sent their payments in on time to be assessed a late fee.

In July 2007, a federal judge in California certified a class of plaintiffs alleging claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA. The case was settled in April; as part of the agreement, Litton agreed to create a settlement fund containing $537,500, from which plaintiffs can draw up to $60 each. The narrow definition of the class and relatively small settlement amount likely left some consumers disappointed, but it at least signaled that Litton was willing to put the issue to rest.

Loan modifications

Four months after approval of the settlement, ConsumerAffairs.com continues to be bombarded with Litton complaints. An overwhelming number of homeowners report that they were promised a loan modification, only to be told months later that they did not qualify. In some cases, Litton dragged the process out by claiming they haven't received necessary paperwork or that the evaluation is taking longer than expected; in many cases the delay is so great that consumers come dangerously close to foreclosure.

In fact, it wasn't until earlier this month that Litton began officially participating in the federal government's mortgage modification program, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).

Low-income advocacy group ACORN labeled mortgage servicers that don't participate in the program as "homewreckers," but Litton and HomEq, the only other lender that had failed to participate in the program, have since announced they'll start doing so.

Litton said it has offered more than 35,000 trial modifications using terms "consistent with the Treasury program" since it was announced. Litton modified another 44,000 loans, the company said, in the 12 months before the start of the program.

"Our company has used modifications as the primary method of helping homeowners avoid foreclosure. In the 12 months prior to the announcement of the Home Affordable Modification program, we modified more than 44,000 loans, representing about 10% of our loan portfolio. As the details of the federal program emerged, we continued to modify loans, and by adopting this program, we will continue to make every effort to keep homeowners in their homes, said Larry B. Litton, Jr., Littons president and CEO.

Litton said customers who are having difficulty making their mortgage payments are encouraged to call (800) 247-9727 or visit www.littonloan.com to determine if they are eligible for a modification or other loan workout solution.

Homeowners beg to differ

But homeowners who have sought assistance from Litton say the process isn't as easy as the company claims.

Al of Empire, MI writes:

I applied for a loan modification March 4, 2009. Since that time I have sent all requested documents and forms including tax forms, proof of pension and SS income. These documents were claimed via phone conversation as "haven't been received" or "in review" or "I can't tell you" or "we'll let you know in writing. They would never commit to a process or approximate date. Now as of July 28, 2009, nothing.

Delianes of Miami, FL had a similar experience:

In December 2008 I had requested a loan modification to Litton Loan Services. I was paying my monthly payments on time but struggling in order to keep my loan current. They told me that it takes aprox 90 days. A month after I called them and they said that they never received any documents, even though I had the fax confirmation, I faxed all the documents again. A month later they sent me a letter that my request was denied because we had insufficient income.

Barbara of Bowie, MD has waited over two months for a response. Barbara writes:

I contacted Litton to receive a loan modification and sent them all the paper work. They stated they will do a worked out a plan to decrease my paments. In April 2009, I spoke with a Litton representative regarding my loan modification. It is now June 2009 and I have not heard from Litton Loan Servicing Company. I don't know if Litton really modifies loans. According to there website they help people to stay out of foreclosure.

Payments held

More disturbingly, some consumers also complain that Litton is still holding mortgage payments they sent in long ago. Missy of Northlewisburg, OH writes:

They held mortgage payments we did make for reasons I don't know. Some are still being held today. So it looks like we are behind on payments.

Mary of Vista, CA says that Litton failed to apply payments to her escrow account:

Loan modification since Oct 2008. I have had nothing but problems with this company. Paid 1,500 towards the escrow account yet they did not apply it towards the account. Now they say I owe 3,500 toward escrow account. I recently paid 900 towards escrow account they are not showing that paid.

More litigation?

If Litton is again applying payments late, they are putting themselves at risk of incurring a second class action, or at least a number of individual lawsuits. While consumers covered by the first settlement agreement are unable to pursue further claims, the same is not true of homeowners who fall outside the class definition. The Supreme Court has held that class actions only bar subsequent actions if they could have been litigated during the original suit.

Litton's practices with regard to loan modification could also put it on shaky legal ground, given the strict disclosure requirements imposed by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and other federal legislation.

Four months after Litton Loan Services settled a class action accusing the company of imposing bogus late fees, complaints about Litton continue to roll into ConsumerAffairs.com. Some consumers allege that Litton failed to timely post payments to their accounts, the main issue in the class action. Still others get the run-around from the mortgage servicing company on the possibility of receiving a loan adjustment, leading to confusion and, in many cases, the threat of fo...

The seven took advantage of desperate homeowners, state charges

Seven suspects have been arrested in a mortgage fraud scheme that defrauded more than California 1,550 homeowners seeking loan modification services during the foreclosure crisis.

The felony complaint alleges that Nehad “Nick” Ayyoub Ayyoub, 57, of San Bernardino and president of The Firm Loans, Insurance and Investments Inc. and First Choice Debt Solutions Inc., along with his six colleagues, Ghydan Ayyoub Rabadi, 38, of Los Angeles, Zaid Rabadi, 49, of Los Angeles, James Clemons, 55, of Riverside County, Wissam Ismail, 32, of Riverside County, Eddie Mercado, 57, of San Bernardino, and Majid Safaie, 60, of Orange County, deceived homeowners by illegally charging upfront payments for loan modification services and lying about the services they provided.

“These individuals profited from the fear and desperation of hard working Californians who were simply fighting to keep their homes during the height of our state’s foreclosure crisis,” California Attorney General Kamala Harris said. “This kind of predatory activity is reprehensible.”

The suspects are charged in a 24-count complaint of felony grand theft, personal and corporate income tax evasion and conspiracy. Ayyoub is facing a maximum exposure of 12 years in prison while his colleagues are facing a maximum exposure of 8 years.

Desperate homeowners

According to court filings, Ayyoub and his colleagues took advantage of homeowners who were desperate to lower their mortgage payments by selling them home loan modification services and requiring payment of upfront fees.

Homeowners were falsely told that attorneys would be negotiating their loan modifications, that they would get a loan modification with no risk of failure, that they would receive a refund if they were dissatisfied and that the suspects had special contacts with lenders, which would give them an advantage in obtaining lowered monthly payments.

Homeowners were instructed to stop paying their mortgage and to instead give the money to Ayyoub and his colleagues to ensure that they would obtain a loan modification, causing many victims to default on their home loans without obtaining a modification, according to court filings.

The suspects operated this scam from January 2007 to March 2010, according to court filings.

Attorney General Harris’ Mortgage Fraud Strike Force began investigating this case in 2010 yet business records were immediately sealed until September 2012 when Safaie’s claim of attorney client privilege was overruled.

Homeowners who feel they may have been victimized should file an online complaint with the California Attorney General’s Office: http://oag.ca.gov/consumers.

2 comments

Jane Spaulding

I hope they sock it to them. As a Traveling Notary, they not only dupe the Borrower, but the Notary that signs them up and the Banks that do a reputable business. I know that there have been a few Loan Modifications lately, but this will certainly turn people off of Legit companies. All I can advise is people please do your Home Work, talk to the BBB check on them, make sure they are not a bogus outfit.

Steve Herbelin

Sure, but whatever happen to the mortgage brokers and loan originators who started this all. Oh, I remember. Nothing!

Seven suspects have been arrested in a mortgage fraud scheme that defrauded more than California 1,550 homeowners seeking loan modification services during the foreclosure crisis.

The felony complaint alleges that Nehad “Nick” Ayyoub Ayyoub, 57, of San Bernardino and president of The Firm Loans, Insurance and Investments Inc. and First Choice Debt Solutions Inc., along with his six colleagues, Ghydan Ayyoub Rabadi, 38, of Los Angeles, Zaid Rabadi, 49, of...

A mortgage relief scheme that allegedly deceived and preyed on distressed homeowners by charging them $2,000 to $4,000 based on bogus foreclosure rescue claims has been brought to a halt.

According to a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the defendants allegedly falsely claimed they would provide legal help to save consumers’ homes from foreclosure and lower their mortgage payments. Then, says the FTC, they charged them up-front fees in violation of federal law, delivering little or no help, and driving them deeper into debt.

The temporary restraining order obtained by the commission signed shuts down the defendants’ websites, freezes their assets, and provides for appointment of a receiver pending trial.

Marketing ploys

The defendants marketed their scheme in a variety of ways, which included using an official looking mailer that implores consumers to act quickly before they “FORFEIT LEGAL RIGHTS,” or face a “statute of limitations and government program deadlines,” according to the FTC.

Three individuals -- Ratan Baid, Madhulika Baid, and William D. Goodrich -- and seven companies falsely promised lower monthly payments and interest rates, and conversion of adjustable-rate mortgages to fixed ones, the complaint contends. Many consumers who called the toll-free numbers were falsely guaranteed a loan modification that supposedly would make their payments more affordable, that they would get results within 60 to 90 days, or that Goodrich, an attorney, would use his impressive legal experience on their behalf, according to the complaint.

The defendants also marketed their scheme online, through telemarketing calls and with television and radio ads, according to the complaint. The defendants’ websites touted a range of financial services, including bankruptcy advice, credit counseling, and “forensic mortgage audits.”

One of the sites described how these “audits” can help consumers hold onto their homes or lower their mortgage payments. It falsely claimed that the “audits” could uncover any “lending violations” committed by lenders, and that the information could be used “to gain leverage in a successful loan modification,” the complaint stated.

In reality, however, the defendants generally did not provide the promised loan modification or help consumers avoid foreclosure, either directly or through the “forensic mortgage audits.”

The complaint charges the defendants with violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and with violating the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule, which bans mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification services from collecting fees until homeowners have a written offer from their lender or servicer that they deem acceptable.

A mortgage relief scheme that allegedly deceived and preyed on distressed homeowners by charging them $2,000 to $4,000 based on bogus foreclosure rescue claims has been brought to a halt.

According to a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the defendants allegedly falsely claimed they would provide legal help to save consumers’ homes from foreclosure and lower their mortgage payments. Then, says the FTC, they charged them up-front fees in violation ...

Those whose trial modifications are rejected are much worse off

The foreclosure process is under scrutiny after revelations
that some loan servicers violated the rules. Now the focus may be shifting to the
loan modification process, which has failed to prevent as many foreclosures as
once hoped.

Lawsuits have proliferated this year, filed by homeowners
desperately trying to hang onto their homes, and who say loan servicers lied to
them, gave them erroneous information and lost their paperwork as they tried to
modify their loans.

San Francisco's Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, a
legal services group, has sued JPMorgan Chase, accusing the bank of exploiting
homeowners with trial modifications, only to foreclose on their homes.

The government-backed modification effort, the Home
Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), launched in April 2009, has encouraged
lenders to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. About 1.4 million
homeowners have entered the program but only 500,000 have emerged with modified
mortgages. The rest? Most have lost their homes to foreclosures.

Complaints Mount

Since January 1, 2010 there have been 1,756 complaints about
home modifications posted on ConsumerAffairs.com. One of them is one from Debi,
in Scranton, Pa., who said she was both shocked and relieved to see so many
other complaints that mirrored the problems she was experiencing with American
Servicing Corporation.

"The company offered to 'help' us by setting us up on a
modification program," she told ConsumerAffairs.com. "All seemed fine for two years. They dropped approximately $200
from our payment of $1.350. Then in March 2010 they put is on their 'trial' basis of three months. Still not sure why."

Debi said the bank continued to withdraw their modified
payment of $1176 from her account for four months. Then the following month she
received a check from the bank for $946.

Calling to inquire why the bank would be sending her money,
Debi was told that she had been withdrawn from the trial modification because
she had not sent all the required documents. Debi says she sent every requested
document, at least twice. While she was reapplying for the modification
program, she said she received notice from the bank that they were putting her
in a short sale. She was losing her home.

What do we do now?

"We have been in this house
for over 20 years," she said. "Are we just supposed to stop fighting, give in
and move out?â€

Countrywide Finance customer
Janette, of Simi Valley, Calif., believes the whole modification process is
seriously flawed. She complains that she can't obtain accurate information and
the process is drawn out over a year or more.

"The longer it takes the
further behind we fall,â€ she says. "Then, if the modification is approved the
payment is higher, as there's more past due payments included. Something needs
to be done now.â€

John, of Forest Lake, Minn.,
says Chase has been giving him the runaround for 18 months. He said he tried to
work out a modification but the bank eventually rejected it and began
foreclosure proceedings.

"I found a credit union that was willing to pay off the
loan and start fresh but Chase has added $37,000 to my loan and now the credit
union is not so interested in loaning this extra money,â€ John told
ConsumerAffairs.com. "My loan officer said it's unheard of to charge anyone
this kind of fee and refused the loan. I'm tired of dealing with the number of
people at Chase that hand off my phone calls. You never get the same person and
no one can give you an answer. They just pass you on to the next number and it
can go on for hours till you give up. The Attorney General's office is tired of
hearing the calls come in and you would think someone would help the general
public. What's their job? But this bank has figured out how to strip its
customers of the little cash they have in their home or pocket and have no fear
of anyone telling them what they are doing is wrong.â€

In her testimony before Congress last month, Julia Gordon,
of the Center For Responsible Lending, said HAMP's performance has been
disappointing, despite the half-million families that have gotten a second
chance.

Fallen fall short

"HAMP has fallen far short of its initial goals for
helping individual homeowners and has remained well behind the curve of
additional foreclosures," she said. "Worse, many families encounter an
incompetent or even predatory mortgage servicing system once
they apply to the program, experiencing delays or denials that are inconsistent
with the
promise of the program guidelines.â€

Gordon
said hundreds of thousands of people who received trial modifications during
HAMP's initial phase have ended up in a worse financial situation as a result
of their participation in the program if they do not get converted to a permanent
modification.

The
reason? During the trial period, when they are making reduced payments at the
direction of their lender, their lender is also reporting them as delinquent to
the

credit bureaus. Not only that, but late fees and interest
continue to accumulate, resulting in a large addition to the debt at the end of
the trial modification.

Like a dangerous, high stakes roll of the dice, those who
enter the modification process but come up short often find them in even more
dire financial straits.

"The continued insistence by Treasury officials that HAMP
is working has contributed to deep cynicism in those who have interacted with participants,â€
Gordan said.The
credibility of the program has been further undermined because it has not been
transparent and has not created adequate enforcement mechanisms.

The foreclosure process is under scrutiny after revelations
that some loan servicers violated the rules. Now the focus may be shifting to the
loan modification process, which has failed to prevent as many foreclosures as
once hoped.

Lawsuits have proliferated this year, filed by homeowners
desperately trying to hang onto their homes, and who say loan servicers lied to
them, gave them erroneous information and lost their paperwork as they tried to
modify their loans....

California promoters agree to stop their allegedly illegal activities

A California group accused of victimizing more than 1,000 consumers has agreed to stop promoting its "forensic loan audits" and "mass joinder" lawsuits to homeowners seeking relief from mortgage-related problems.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said the promoters deceived cash-strapped consumers into believing they could hold onto their homes and reduce their mortgage payments by either suing their mortgage lenders in so-called “mass joinder” lawsuits or buying “forensic loan audits.”

All of the defendants, including two individuals and seven companies, will surrender assets and be prohibited from making deceptive claims about any product or service, and all but one are banned from marketing mortgage- and debt- relief services.

The FTC filed a complaint in 2012 against Santa Ana-based Sameer Lakhany and five companies he controlled. The agency later added three more defendants.

"Specialty law firm"

In the first alleged scam, Lakhany and defendants Brian Pacios, Precision Law Center, Inc., Precision Law Center LLC, National Legal Network, Inc., and Assurity Law Group, Inc., allegedly held themselves out as a specialty law firm called Precision Law Center, making the false promise to consumers that if they sued their lenders along with other homeowners in so-called “mass joinder” lawsuits, they could obtain favorable mortgage concessions from their lenders or stop the foreclosure process.

According to the complaint, they charged $6,000 to $10,000 in advance, but failed to follow through with the suits, all of which were dismissed shortly after filing.

The complaint alleged that these defendants falsely portrayed themselves as nonprofit organizations using the domain names “HouseholdRelief.org,” “MyHomeSupport.org,” and “FreeFedLoanMod.org.”

They told consumers the loan audits would find lender violations 90 percent of the time or more, and that this would force lenders to give them better mortgage terms. In fact, the complaint alleged that consumers rarely if ever obtained better mortgage terms as a result of these “forensic loan audits.”

A California group accused of victimizing more than 1,000 consumers has agreed to stop promoting its "forensic loan audits" and "mass joinder" lawsuits to homeowners seeking relief from mortgage-related problems.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said the promoters deceived cash-strapped consumers into believing they could hold onto their homes and reduce their mortgage payments by either suing their mortgage lenders in so-called “mass joinder” lawsuits...

Instead of lower payments some find foreclosure

Karen, of Winder, Ga., sounds like an ideal homeowner. She had owned her home for 12 years and never missed a payment.

All would have been fine, she insists, if she had not applied for a mortgage modification.

"I got on board the modification ride because our president told the American people to take advantage of the modification process, even if you are not in trouble, but got a bad loan from Countrywide," Karen told ConsumerAffairs.com.

The modification process was actually designed for people who were unable to make their mortgage payments after low "teaser" rates adjusted to much higher rates. Though she had a subprime loan and her payments took a big bite from her monthly budget, Karen was able to handle the expense. Still, she contacted Bank of America - the new owner of Countrywide - about a modification in July 2009.

Approved

"They Fed-Exed a letter that I have in my possession to this day, that arrived at my home in March of 2010, saying that I was approved for the modification and to keep my eyes out for my new loan documents," Karen said. "Day after day, week after week, then month after month I got the run around again."

In that respect, Karen's story is not that different from others, who say misscommunication and neglect by loan servicers required them to fax documents multiple times, often with no result. Karen was told to make a lower trial loan payment, with the difference, plus interest, tacked onto the end of her loan.

By the end of October 2010, Karen said she was receiving letters from the lender threatening foreclosure.

All alone

"Being single, with no family and no one to get advice from, I left the home because I refused to pay Bank of America another penny," she said. "The house had sat for one year before they actually did the foreclosure and repairing all the damage that had been done the past year it sitting empty. Again, I never missed a payment. I would still be in that home, modified loan or not, if I wouldn't have been lied to and cheated.

Karen's story seem particularly tragic since it appears to be a foreclosure that never should have happened. Without anyone to give her advice, she embarked on a course that ultimately led to foreclosure and bankruptcy.

Where to turn

Homeowners who find themselves in similar circumstances can turn to the Making Home Affordable program for advice. There is information on the website and homeowners can get advice by calling 888-995-4673.

But homeowners like Karen who are struggling but are able to pay their mortgage each month should think long and hard before applying for a mortgage modification. First, the track record for this program actually helping people is not that good.

In fact, there are many example of homeowners, like Karen, who ended up in worse shape after beginning the modification process.

Part of the problem is that a modification is not a clearly defined product. It can vary, depending on the homeowner's circumstances. It might be designed to lower the interest rate or it might try to reduce the monthly payment. But in the end, the lender will require that the loan be repaid.

"If they can afford to pay, they should pay," Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for J.P. Morgan Chase, told Bankrate.com recently. "If they can't afford to pay, we need to make sure they have a fighting chance to make the new payments and pay back the loan over the long term."

For homeowners, the question is whether they can continue to make their house payments, even if it requires struggle and sacrifice. If so, they will likely be better off with the status quo, rather than rolling the dice on a modification that could result in losing their home faster than they might have otherwise.

11 comments

Darcella Stevens

I agree that Bank of America is the absolute worst but almost all of the mortgage servicers, including GMAC treated homeowners so horribly and they should be shut down. The multiple requests for the same documents that homeowners sent and faxed over and over and over, the "modifications' that weren't actually modifications because the servicers seemed to forget that they gave them to homeowners and foreclosed anyway, and the outright boldfaced lies that the employees of these despicable companies told homeowners has netted them all a place in the flames of hell when they die. These companies don't care if people, no matter who they are or what their circumstances are loses their homes as long as these companies make a profit. They are right up there with Enron and hopefully they will end up the same way Enron did - bankrupt, no jobs for their lying employees and most of them in prison.

Dixie Cook

Cenlar bank is the bane of my existance. Stall, stall, I am now at the "to hell with the whole thing" stage. I guess they want another foreclosure. They are only collecting money for Freddie Mac, so why would they care. Freddie Mac has already been bailed out once so they should be happy to take less money and interest, but I doubt if they even know about it.

Dixie Cook

Cenlar bank is the bane of my existance. Stall, stall, I am now at the "to hell with the whole thing" stage. I guess they want another foreclosure. They are only collecting money for Freddie Mac, so why would they care. Freddie Mac has already been bailed out once so they should be happy to take less money and interest, but I doubt if they even know about it.

Cathy Marturano

BOA is as fake as a 3 dollar bill. They failed to complete a HSA loan, then spent 2 years threatening me with forecloser, with the help of the "so called" Making Homes Affordable program (they were of no help). The end result... I get to pay almost $150,000. for the giant bloopers BOA has made with my HSA loan. Did my payments go down? no, it went up, $100 a month. Did my interest rate go down? no, it stayed the same. Did my remaining 25 years, 8 months change? yes, now I get to pay an additional $100 a month, for another 40 years. All because BOA doesn't know how to fix a mistake. I get to pay.

Cathy Marturano

BOA is as fake as a 3 dollar bill. They failed to complete a HSA loan, then spent 2 years threatening me with forecloser, with the help of the "so called" Making Homes Affordable program (they were of no help). The end result... I get to pay almost $150,000. for the giant bloopers BOA has made with my HSA loan. Did my payments go down? no, it went up, $100 a month. Did my interest rate go down? no, it stayed the same. Did my remaining 25 years, 8 months change? yes, now I get to pay an additional $100 a month, for another 40 years. All because BOA doesn't know how to fix a mistake. I get to pay.

Roger Rinaldi

this is not legal advice: these are the rantings of an out-of-control Dago who has been dancing with Wells Fargo all the way to Bankruptcy court. After being "serviced into default" by Wells, they waited 8 months to file a foreclosure action. We answered with affirmative defenses and counterclaims, only to be "defeated" by (fake) plaintiff HSBC as a "failure to state a cause of action". Our counterclaims were against Wells Fargo (originator, servicer, custodian, securities administrator, depositor, and SPONSOR of the securitized trust). Judge said those claims don't apply against HSBC as Trustee for Wells Fargo Home Equity Trust 2005-2, the plaintiff. Tied them up for a year there in state court, Jjudge gives them the foreclosure judgment, we scream for a modification. After making three trial payments, they post the sheriff's sale ad in the paper. Now I'm screaming some more, and they give me a modification with all the arrears added to the loan. Of course they mis-stated my income to raise the payment. Being the smart guy that I am (not), I file another lawsuit against Wells, HSBC, the law firm (racketeering and wire fraud), and screwed up the service of process. Now the judge is smoking hot (especially after I filed a motion to vacate the judgment for fraud with robo-hobo signed affidavits). Long story short, we're still in the house. The geniuses at Wells tendered an altered note to the bankruptcy trustee (big no-no) with an "endorsement in blank". The moral of the story is DO SIGN OVER YOUR DEED IN LIEU OF FORECLOSURE! That's the only reason we are still here. Make them fight for the house. DON'T WALK AWAY! I know the judge is out sanction me for frivolous pleadings ("There's nothing frivolous about it, Judge, these guys are stealing my house!). He'll see another motion to vacate soon for the use of the fictional plaintiff used to bring the foreclosure in the first place. HSBC NEVER HELD TITLE TO THE LOAN OR THE MORTGAGE. It was all Wells Fargo to begin with. check out livinglies.wordpress, or google "usedkarguy" and "counterparty" and get an education on Wells Fargo and foreclosure fraud. The tide is turning.

Roger Rinaldi

correction: DON'T SIGN OVER YOUR DEED IN LIEU. GOT IT?

Stevan Grimes

J.P. Morgan Chase used Select Portfolio Servicing to do this to me. My payments went from affordable $960.00 to $1100.00 because I applied and payed all the fees and I got layed off and only work seasonal jobs now! The maintenance on my home with increased utilities and grocery bills to feed two now teenagers has put me under. NACA was of no help as SPS said I could stay for $740.00 mo. with $7,000.00 balloon payment in six months! $96,000.00 Mortgage went to $106,000.00 and I can't short sale for $65,000.00 so the price will be reduced again! The neighborhood is going downhill fast and foreclosures dot the area selling for $26,000.00! Chase you can have it and I hope you choke on the drugs that this neighborhood starts to sell when all the good Folks are run off and leave it to the Bad!

Laurie Sobolewski

The American Mortgage Crisis:
The Federal government enacted programs to restore confidence in Americans.
Why is the government renegging on these policies?
The government created things like HAMP and delegated and paid the Big Banks to administer. Therefor, the big banks have a fiduciary responsibility to the Fed to implement these programs.
Big Banks don't like these programs and do everything to avoid implementing them. They can & do get away with this dereliction of duty because the government refuses to oversee these "private" institutions.
If the banks do not want to administer the programs, give them back to the fed.
In my case I have been involved in some variation of Fed & Big Bank hell for 20 months. In the latest chapter I have been involved with the HAMP program since Feb 2011. I finally was granted entry into the program & its three trial payments.
Finally hope. Understand I have owned a printing company for 20 years. It's (like many small businesses) was devastated by the inept decisions from the best and brightest of America's finest colleges.
Hope. That is what the programs were designed for. Hope is what I was given. With this new hope I decided to try to salvage my business with the help of Xerox.
Hope. I made my three payments. I heard nothing from Bank of America. I made a fourth payment because I had no idea what to do. Later I received a letter saying that I did not make all my required payments and I was denied the HAMP program. I did and still am contesting this. It seems there was a clerical error. My payment of 1302, was entered as 1032. Simple transposition error. No, the computer rubber stamps me out.
B of A says to call for other programs. B of A does not reply. I have left over 100 messages for my Client Service Rep. That is who my account goes to automatically. Never ONCE has he called back. I have NEVER spoken to him. If I enter a wrong account number I can get a human but then I get transferred to my CS. And the cycle repeats.
I am involved with a HUD contracted credit agency to help with the process. They are the only ones that can get through to B of A. Any B of A rep works with us and then emails my CSR & his boss. Four weeks running. NO replies.
How is a little person supposed to hold a federally backed institution accountable?
Meanwhile another month goes by. When I started the HAMP program I was one month behind. Now because they don't recognize the trial plan & payment, plus their apathy, I am 7 months behind.
I fail to see what is missing here. Everybody says ask for help and yet B of A REFUSES to reply.

Joni McGee Massengale

I had been sending BoA all of their requested paperwork for nearly a year, despite the fact that I have been having to work seasonal jobs out of state. On November 17, I faxed to them the documents which my service rep said would be the last ones before my modification application would be sent to underwriting. According to my rep, underwriting contacted her on the 18th requesting more documents, she tried to call me on the 21st but did not reach me and my application was denied on the 23rd (the day before Thanksgiving). The "missing" document turned out to be a 2010 IRS Schedule A (Itemized Deductions). My husband and I used the Standard Deduction in 2010 so there is no Schedule A. My service rep told me that underwriting would have wanted me to send a blank form to show I didn't itemize. The letter we received from BoA telling us our application had been denied states that they had requested these documents 30 days prior. This whole process has been a nightmare and BoA does not deal in good faith. Personally, I believe their actions have been fraudulent and will pursue this matter accordingly.

John Paul Wright

Listen, Countrywide and Bank of Destroying The American Dream might have already been paid back by several for loans from unidentified investors, multiple times, and by credit default swaps and insurance. It is a potential insurance fraud! Then they want the homeowner to pay them again! The simple fact is that our loans might have been concurrently sold into multiple Trusts at the same time, which would be equivalent to selling the same car over and over to several different people using a COPY of the pink slip or Title of the car. IT IS ILLEAGAL!
Nevertheless, If there is a break in the chain of title: “An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.” - U.C.C. provision, U.C.C. §3-305(c).
These bankers attitude reminds me of that song by George Harrison named “Piggies”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD9rTzs2q4&feature=player_embedded.
Look, I am not looking for a free house. I am looking for a free country! These banks should be held accountable by the homeowner according to the laws of our land. This is why everyone should have a Title and Securitization Search done. - http://piggybankblog.com/2011/12/30/break-in-chain-of-title/.
Join me in my fight America! Because divided we might have fell! But United We Must Stand!
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
Read John’s Daily Blog at Piggybankblog.com on how to join this fight!
John Wright
Piggybankblog.com

John Paul Wright

Listen, Countrywide and Bank of Destroying The American Dream might have already been paid back by several for loans from unidentified investors, multiple times, and by credit default swaps and insurance. It is a potential insurance fraud! Then they want the homeowner to pay them again! The simple fact is that our loans might have been concurrently sold into multiple Trusts at the same time, which would be equivalent to selling the same car over and over to several different people using a COPY of the pink slip or Title of the car. IT IS ILLEAGAL!
Nevertheless, If there is a break in the chain of title: “An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.” - U.C.C. provision, U.C.C. §3-305(c).
These bankers attitude reminds me of that song by George Harrison named “Piggies”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD9rTzs2q4&feature=player_embedded.
Look, I am not looking for a free house. I am looking for a free country! These banks should be held accountable by the homeowner according to the laws of our land. This is why everyone should have a Title and Securitization Search done. - http://piggybankblog.com/2011/12/30/break-in-chain-of-title/.
Join me in my fight America! Because divided we might have fell! But United We Must Stand!
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
Read John’s Daily Blog at Piggybankblog.com on how to join this fight!
John Wright
Piggybankblog.com

Douglas Hill Kelley

MY STORY
There are people out there who just didn’t care that their house was upside down, continued to make their payments, but are getting taken away anyway! That would be us. That’s right, even after making our mortgage payments on time, our loan modification approved countrywide prior to take over by B of A was nullified by the new service provider and then accused our family of being in default!
After spending double my mortgage payments for attorneys the last two years and running out of money, I decided to go pro per submitting my complaint with 300 pages of evidence. I won a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the bank, won the hearing at the Order to Show Cause facing off with the bank’s attorneys who were yelled at by the Judge for trying to interrupt him from scolding them of breaching a contract, and muted their demure with a Amended Complaint to address their lack and totally incorrect records of me not making payments and adding a new cause of action for an accounting!
VERY BREIF BACKGROUND:
September 2008, our family began to struggle to handle the interest only mortgage we had with Countrywide. Although we had yet to be late on any mortgage payment and had always paid in full, we began to be alert to ways of reducing our rate on our loan.
On the evening of November 20, 2008, we saw a live local news broadcast from the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency encouraging the public to attend a free mortgage refinance workshop where lenders such as Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo, Countrywide, Chase, IndyMac Bank, Bank of America, and Wachovia were on site providing “one-on-one” sessions with loan modification specialists to help struggling homeowners process loan modification applications. We quickly rushed down to Sacramento to attend the event.
Countrywide required a 3 month forbearance agreement be filled out. Within 2 weeks Countrywide sent a letter indicating they had modified our existing loan, reducing the rate to 4 percent with payments to begin March 2009. The letter further stated there was nothing we needed to do further to receive this rate. We began making payments as agreed on times starting March 2009.
The loan was sold to Bank of American May 2009; they suddenly started charging late fees pointing to the old 7.125 percent rate. We provided them paperwork and they later reversed the late fees. Bank of America then sold the servicing to Residential Credit Solutions (RCS) July 2009.
After making payments for 6 months on time at the new rate, RCS returned our August 2009 payment on 8/10/2009 along with a “Notice of Intent to Take Legal Action” dated 8/24/2009 demanding over 19,000 dollars in interest and late fees pointing to the OLD 7.125 percent interest rate.
We sent RCS the documents substantiating the agreement, but they would not acknowledge them saying Countrywide did not setup the loan correctly. RCS continued to foreclosure.
After spending over 34,000 in attorney fees, which are “non recoverable” in California, I finally ran out of money and ended up going Pro Per. I wrote my own complaint, summons, Ex Parte Application for TRO, Order to Show Cause, and Proposed Order submitting more than 300 pages of evidence of never being late. The bank’s attorney showed up to the hearing; it was a sweet victory to hear the judge sternly reprimand the banks actions and Grant the Enjoinment stopping the foreclosure until the case can be heard!
All enjoinments require bonds in the event the court was out of their mind and the defendants actually prove the enjoinment was not correct. The court ordered our normal mortgage payment, which we gladly have made the last 3 months. However, for the month of January, we are to come up with 35,000 for interest they refused to accept as part of the bond.
RCS remarkably tried to later argue by filing a Demurer stating I had not made payments for over 2 years and that we had made payments we had not, which caused me to file the First Amended Complaint referenced above adding an additional Cause of Action for an Accounting. I filed the amended complaint a few days before the demure hearing causing the court to cancel the defendants demure (another sweet victory).
We have tried in SO MANY ways to work something out with RCS/FANNIE MAE, but I believe there is just too much money on the table to be made from FDIC Loss Share Agreement reimbursements that cause corrupt individuals at the top to turn away from actually granting a modification. That is why so many HAMP loans never really work.
I have learned SO MUCH from this experience. My attorney, who now resides in the background ($350.00 an hour) has written off many hours lately because I think he gets a kick out of a pro-per guy going in and knocking down bank attorney with evidence and subject matter. I tell him, this was as hard as my Master’s Degree Thesis and I really would rather he do this, but I really need to keep the money at this point.
I can easily provide all my evidence to anyone that might want it. We can provide copies of the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint filed as well as the Judges order to the original Complaint.
We are appalled at what has happened to good people of America. The economic collapse can easily be attributed to corrupt individuals who have abused relaxed lending laws instantiated earlier this decade. We hope our story shows just how bad financial institutions have become. Currently Nevada’s Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto, has led an unbelievable fight against Bank of America (I have personally had to argue with B of A attorneys about our loan agreement). California Attorney General, Attorney General Harris, recently joined Catherine Cortez Masto to form a joint investigation alliance designed to assist homeowners who have been harmed by misconduct and fraud in the mortgage industry.
However, I think we need to make ourselves heard. I wish us the best.
Doug Kelley
Rocklin, CA 95765.
Dhk.kelley@gmail.com

Rose Edwards

You know, I really think this is great advice. I mean keep paying for your house while it continues to become worth hundreds or thousands less than what you owe. And while your keeping up with the payments. Can you still afford to fix the roof and keep up with all of the other little costly expenses that come up month after month. So in the long run, not only is your house depreciating, you have to let it fall apart because you can't afford to fix it and make the payments too. But, Remind me, What was the "Making Homes Affordable" plan set up for? Or should I say WHOM?

Karen, of Winder, Ga., sounds like an ideal homeowner. She had owned her home for 12 years and never missed a payment.

All would have been fine, she insists, if she had not applied for a mortgage modification.

"I got on board the modification ride because our president told the American people to take advantage of the modification process, even if you are not in trouble, but got a bad loan from Countrywide," Karen told ConsumerAffairs.com.

Operations in Ohio, Florida and California bilked homeowners out of thousands

The state of Ohio has filed three new lawsuits against foreclosure rescue operations, charging they cheated consumers out of tens of thousands of dollars.

The court actions seek to shut down these outfits in Ohio with full restitution to homeowners.

"In each case, the rescue operations charged ridiculously high fees to assist homeowners who were at risk of losing their homes," said Attorney General Richard Cordray. "In the end, homeowners got no help and ended up in deeper mortgage trouble. No Ohioan should ever pay for foreclosure assistance, and we have legitimate housing counselors who help you for free."

The suits were filed against National Homeownership Assistance Foundation Ltd (NHAF), located in Worthington, Ohio, and Stephens Investment & Financial Services dba Lifeline Financial Legal Home Solutions, located in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Offered false hope

Cordray accuses NHAF and its managing partner, Casimir S. Suwinski, its general manager, Casimir S. Suwinski Jr. and its president, Arden Banks of charging homeowners on average $2,500 for foreclosure prevention services, such as securing loan modifications from mortgage servicers, and then not providing the service.

In the case against Lifeline, Cordray accuses the operation of claiming that it could "reduce your payments up to 10-50 percent," or "lower your interest rate." After charging thousands of dollars, the company failed to deliver the service. Lifeline also misled consumers by misrepresenting its legal expertise and the availability of legal services, including "retained legal experts."

Complaints about Lifeline Financial are not limited to consumers in Ohio. Edward, of Billings, MT, says he paid the company $1200 in July, 2009, to negotiate a loan modification to save his home from foreclosure.

"Our mortgage company told me LifeLine sent in our Making Home Affordable package in August and then never got back with them as of October 30, 2009," he writes ConsumerAffairs.com. "When I complained they threw us under the bus. I want our money returned to us."

Additionally, Cordray filed a suit against 1st American Law Center Inc. based in Oceanside, Calif. In that filing, 1st American is accused of charging homeowners as much as $4,000 for foreclosure prevention assistance services such as negotiating loans and accepting payment for these services without delivering on its promises.

"I contacted them (1st American) to help lower my mortgage rates and credit cards," writes Randy of Hiawatha, KS. "They would stall and would not answer email or phone calls. When I had enough, I contacted them by phone and stated I wanted out. They finally agreed that I could be let out of the contract. I had paid them $1995.00. They stated that they would give me $1300.00 back." Randy tells ConsumerAffairs.com that as of August 17, 2010, he had yet to receive the money. "This is a bogus company," he concludes, "who prey on people who are struggling to keep afloat."

All three foreclosure rescue operations have been charged with multiple violations of Ohio law, including failure to deliver, misrepresentation and unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Cordray is seeking civil penalties from each of the companies in addition to full restitution for consumers. Further at the AG's request, the court has ordered an attachment of NHAF's assets, pending resolution of the case.

With these lawsuits, Cordray has taken formal legal action against 14 foreclosure rescue scam operations targeting Ohio homeowners since he took office in January 2009. He also has sued three mortgage servicers for unfair or deceptive loan modification practices.

The court actions seek to shut down these outfits in Ohio with full restitution to homeowners.

"In each case, the rescue operations charged ridiculously high fees to assist homeowners who were at risk of losing their homes," said Attorney General Richard Cordray. "In the end, homeowners got no help and ended up in deeper mortgage trouble. No Ohioan should ever pay for foreclosure assistance, and we have legitimate housing counselors who help you for free."

Hardly anyone has had a good word to say about how Bank of America conducted itself during the housing meltdown. In fact, the situation just seems to keep getting worse.

In the latest series of damaging accusations, a group of Bank of America employees say in court documents filed in Boston that they regularly lied to homeowners seeking loan modifications and were rewarded for shunting homeowners into foreclosure, the non-profit news service Pro Publica reports.

A Bank of America spokesman denied the allegations, which he said were "rife with factual inaccuracies" and said the bank would respond more fully in court next month.

In sworn statements, six former employees described how they allegedly helped to trick and deceive homeowners. Five worked for the bank and one was employed by a contractor.

The statements were made in connection with a multi-state class action lawsuit by homeowners who say the bank mishandled their applications for refinancing under the Obama administration's Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP).

Customers "blitzed"

One of the former employees, William Wilson Jr., says in his statement that his unit sometimes denied refinances en masse in a procedure they called a "blitz."

"During a blitz, a single team would decline between 600 and 1,500 modification files at a time," he said. To justify the action, he said the employees would simply make up reasons, often saying the homeowner had not sent in the required documents, when in fact they had done so.

"We were told to lie to customers and claim that Bank of America had no received documents it had requested," another employee said, according to the Pro Publica report. Homeowners who called in were routinely told their applications were "under review" when in fact nothing had been done or they had already been denied, one of the former employees said.

The testimony is similar to the hundreds of complaints posted to ConsumerAffairs, like this one from Patricia of LaPorte, Indiana:

"I would like to tell everyone who has a home loan through Bank of America to make sure you never try to file for a loan modification and expect to get one. My husband and I tried for several months and did everything Bank of America asked us to.

"We faxed documents one right after another. Our case manager who was assigned to us told us we were approved, only to then get the call a few days later and told we did not get it."

When the HAMP program was launched in 2009 to help homeowners get mortgage modifications, Bank of America was by far the largest mortgage service in the program, with twice as many eligible loans as the next-largest bank.

The former employees say they were simply unable to deal with the huge crush of applications from customers and, rather than staff up to handle the applications, the bank simply lied to its customers.

7 comments

Gorgina Mizzi

Bank of America are terroristic to their consumers.....purchased my home in2004 serviced by Countrywide....Bank of America buys my loan in 2008 & all went down hill.
Started with FHA streamline, BOA does not call but it was when we call after a month awaiting to hear from them to find out what is the status of streamlining the loan.......our file is missing papers, they sad & until BOA has the papers they cannot proceed.....ohhhhh seriously, BOA waited for me to take my time to await for their call to tell me, they are missing the title!
We faxed the documents & after waiting 40 days, I called to inquire & was switched to a case manager.....it was now 8 months after that finally we were not qualified said a different case manager because even though we pay on time & do not own back payments there was one late payment & because of that we were denied!
My husband & I were denied Refi because we do not have any late payments & in order to qualify we have to be 60 days late is what BOA case manager said to us......so much as happened to the point that even increased our mortgage payment by $400 monthly....2012 BOA sent a letter stating that unless the whole payment is sent, BOA will not accept our payments anymore.......2011 we refused to pay the extra monthly payment because we never were explained on appear or agreed upon so BOA will not take our monthly payments till to date:
Yesterday we received an Intent to Foreclose letter from BOA.
This is now 3 years later & paid an attorney to represent us.
We have a file of all the names of reps of BOA we spoke to.....as of to date now we own of course a 11 month plus interest & taxes.........
Now I want a new mortgage loan with principal reduction, pardoned back payments & interests & refi with a 2.5% that should have been back in 2009-2010.
Shame on BOA ......the devil must be the CEOs
It will become a yearly holiday in America the day BOA falls.....I will be on the front lines with the bands.

Marc Saiz

AGH - I really dislike BOA! Why did we bail them out, for this type of deceit and fraud?

Brenda Ann Ware

I do not like BOA for a multitude of reasons. I won't go into all of them because I can't without using language that is not acceptable on the internet. This bank should not of been bailed out-they are dishonest.

Paula Pantalone Polis

Bank of America forces people in to debt....

Claire Walsh

HO...hummmm...another too big to fail screwing the public. When will we start to prosecute those who "coerced" employees to illegal activities? Jail time, not fines should be the punishment.

Susan Marfleet

wronperson

Paula Pantalone Polis

I hate Bank of America it should be called Bank of Robbers they are liars and just want to steal our money they could care less about their homeowners. The same thing happened to us Gorgina, sounds like it could be us all over again. They should be fined and people sent in to review them. This is why American's are broke. The government wants money they should get from those liars. How about this, my husband was in a very bad accident we called they told us don't pay for three months then told us at the end we would have to pay the three months plus what a joke they should be in jail.

Hardly anyone has had a good word to say about how Bank of America conducted itself during the housing meltdown. In fact, the situation just seems to keep getting worse.

In the latest series of damaging accusations, a group of Bank of America employees say in court documents filed in Boston that they regularly lied to homeowners seeking loan modifications and were rewarded for shunting homeowners into foreclosure, the non-profit news service Pro Publica reports.

Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Partner with ConsumerAffairs for Brands If your company has a page on our site, we invite you to sign up for a Starter Account today to respond to your customers directly. Alternatively, you may call us at 1-866-773-0221.

For more information, see about us, FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice. ConsumerAffairs.com makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof.